A President at Full Speed -- and a Congress Asleep at the Wheel

American  Thinker 

President Donald Trump has been back in office for almost a year -- roughly 315 days -- and has governed with the urgency of a turnaround CEO. He hit the ground running, signing executive orders immediately after inauguration and maintaining a pace unmatched in modern politics.

But what becomes of all this action? Executive orders can be reversed the moment a new president arrives unless Congress codifies them into law. That’s the key difference between temporary executive action and lasting legislative reform.

According to Ballotpedia, “As of November 25, 2025, President Donald Trump had signed 217 executive orders, 54 memoranda, and 110 proclamations in his second presidential term, which began on January 20, 2025.”

Yet House Speaker Mike Johnson acknowledged that Congress has codified only 28 of these actions into law through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

That’s barely 13 percent - almost identical to Gallup’s 15 percent job-approval rating for Congress. Coincidence or correlation? Likely both.

What EOs did Congress codify? Three major categories of Trump’s executive actions did become law: 

• Energy, mining, and land-use reforms - a structural shift toward domestic production
• Cost-efficiency, anti-waste, and bureaucracy-reduction measures
• Sweeping immigration and border-security policies

These are significant accomplishments, but they represent only a fraction of Trump’s overall MAGA agenda.

Where has Congress dropped the ball? Some of the most consequential orders have not been codified:

• Withdrawing the U.S. from the World Health Organization
• Establishing a digital-asset framework while banning a central bank digital currency (CBDC)
• Ending DEI and gender-ideology indoctrination in K–12 education

Codification is important because once these policies are signed into law, they will remain in effect beyond the Trump presidency unless Congress enacts new legislation to modify them. Make no mistake, a Democrat-controlled House and Senate will eventually, and at their usual pace, do just that, but a new Democrat president, with “a phone and a pen,” as Obama boasted, could reverse any or all of Trump’s EOs on day one.

Congress is also sleeping through nominations. While Congressional Democrats are openly instructing the military to question or even disobey Trump’s orders based on their “feelings,” what is the Republican-controlled Congress doing? Very little.

The Washington Post, which is tracking federal appointments, reports that of the 823 of 1,300 Senate-confirmable positions, the Senate has confirmed only 265. But 123 nominees still wait, and wait, for Senate action. When will they be confirmed? Next year? Next decade?

At the same time, 289 positions remain without a nominee, likely because no one wants to wait in a line that moves more slowly than the DMV. 165 Biden/Obama era holdovers remain in the administration. These officials, loyal to the former presidents, have every reason to leak, undermine, or sabotage the Trump agenda.

Is it any surprise that over the past 50 years, U.S. presidents have had only three phone calls leaked, while Trump has had more than ten leaked in just five years? That doesn’t happen by accident, and one wonders if this is how the bipartisan DC establishment is monitoring and sabotaging Trump. 

Then there are judges – left waiting while leaving justice hanging. Twelve federal district court nominees are waiting for Senate action. Why the delay? Perhaps because a fully staffed judiciary might take a dim view of misconduct by people like James Comey or Letitia James.

Even after implementing new “en bloc” confirmation rules, Brookings reports that 108 nominees remain stuck in procedural purgatory, including 29 ambassadors, 16 U.S. attorneys, 7 undersecretaries, 6 general counsels, and one inspector general.

Is this treatment exclusive to Trump and other Republican presidents? To be fair, this bottleneck existed before Trump. According to ProPublica, “More than 13 percent of presidentially appointed positions hadn’t been filled at the end of Obama’s first term … compared with around 10 percent for Bush and 11 percent for Clinton.”

And the University of Virginia’s Miller Center notes, “In only 20 years, the average number of days from nomination to confirmation has nearly doubled … from 80 days under George W. Bush to 145 days under President Joseph Biden.” From slow to slower, in bipartisan fashion.

Why does the executive branch require 1,300 Senate-confirmed positions, more than any other developed country on earth? And why does the Senate take nearly half a year to complete some of these, and years to finish the job?

A new corporate CEO usually assembles a new team immediately and starts working. The U.S. president, as CEO of the world’s largest organization, is throttled by 535 ne'er-do-well lawmakers, who often prioritize personal gain or re-election over their Article One duties.

The Miller Center also found that cloture votes on nominations alone consumed 55 percent of all recorded Senate votes during Trump’s first two years and 59 percent during Biden’s.

If nominations consume the Senate, it’s no wonder they can’t codify more of Trump’s executive orders, or balance a budget, or address any of the nation’s spiraling crises. Is this what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they drafted the Constitution?

Maybe Congress needs to borrow Biden’s autopen to speed things up. Ironically, Trump is threatening to void all documents allegedly signed by Biden using the autopen. 

This isn’t separation of powers. It’s a codependent relationship between a narcissistic Congress and a battered, overburdened presidency.

America faces serious problems, yet the legislature cannot lead, follow, or get out of the way. The modern Senate and House have become the federal government’s welfare queens, consuming enormous public resources while producing almost nothing of value.

Consider that the House averages 147 legislative days per year, while the Senate averages 165. That’s working less than half the year, with a salary of $174K. Annualized, they are the top 2-3 percenters. 

Yet members of Congress always find time for cable-news appearances, performative X videos, insider trading, fundraising dinners, and theatrical moral outrage. They enjoy pensions and health plans the public would kill for, and lord over personal staffs averaging 15 to 30 employees.

Earlier this year, protesters organized “No Kings” rallies targeting Trump. Fine, but who are the true kings and queens?

America’s true unaccountable aristocracy isn’t in the Oval Office. It’s the 535 members of Congress who work part-time, accomplish little, line their pockets well, and slow-walk the agenda that voters chose. And excellent job security with a 90 percent reelection rate. 

If Americans want accountability, they should stop yelling at the White House and start asking why Congress is allowed to sleep on the job.

Entertainment thread for Dec 2nd

 

Forgiveness.

A 'Permanent Pause'

Townhall 

Following the shooting of two National Guard members in Washington the day before Thanksgiving, President Trump announced he wants to "permanently pause migration" at least until he is satisfied that those from Afghanistan and other unstable countries have had their backgrounds thoroughly investigated. The president also wants to revoke the legal status of many of them and expel those who don't measure up to his standard, which is "loving America."

Vetting is usually a detailed process for those seeking entry to the U.S., especially when they are from countries associated with terrorism. On Sept. 1, 2021, then-White House press secretary Jen Psaki was asked about the large number of Afghans who had entered the country under President Biden's "Operation Allies Welcome" (OAW) program. Psaki said, "I can absolutely assure you that no one is coming into the United States of America who has not been through a thorough screening and background check process."

After last week's shooting, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem posted on X that the suspect, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, entered the U.S. one week after Psaki's comment.

More than 190,000 Afghans have been resettled in the U.S. under OAW and another program called Enduring Welcome, according to a report published this year by the U.S. State Department. Claiming all were properly vetted strains credulity.

If America's enemies wanted to undermine and eventually destroy the country, sending people here who may have evil intentions is a stealth way to do it. Just as we should not be the policemen of the world, neither should we be expected to be the receivers of the world. We can't afford it on several levels.

Pausing immigration has precedent. The Immigration Act of 1924 established a national origins quota for 40 years until it was repealed in 1965 by another law, the Immigration and Nationality Act. The earlier Act favored immigrants from Northern and Western Europe and excluded many Asians. It also limited new arrivals from Southern and Eastern Europe. Aside from any racial components, most Americans seemed to favor restricting immigration to allow those already here to assimilate. That included becoming proficient in English as well as embracing the history and Constitution of the United States. This process conformed to our national motto, "Out of many, one." The failed border policies of the Biden administration contributed to the hyphenating of many according to their ethnic heritage. It has reversed the motto to effectively mean "out of one, many."

The usual suspects are saying the predictable things about the "causes" of last week's senseless attack. They include the deployment of the National Guard, more gun control laws, additional mental health resources, and other nonsense. Notice that no one is mentioning religion, specifically Islamic extremism.

Authorities claim they don't know the suspect's "motive." Here's a clue. Witnesses reportedly heard him shout "Allahu Akbar," or God is great, before opening fire. It is a statement many terrorists have used before carrying out their murderous acts. Is that enough motive, or do the authorities fear being called "Islamophobes" for stating the obvious?

President Trump is correct when he says we need to know who is coming to America and their intentions. If those intentions are bad – as in wishing to kill Americans – they should not be admitted. That's what the vetting process is supposed to discover. If they are already here and feel this way, they should be deported. Money from countries that have supported terrorism, like Qatar, which has funded Hamas and is sending millions of dollars to American universities, should be cut off.

If we don't protect ourselves from this blight, who will?

What the Hell Is Wrong With Democrats?

Townhall 

Some people are stupid, some people are ignorant, and other people are Democrats. Democrats are an ever-changing combination of the two, and there are few things as dangerous as someone who is an ignorant idiot who is also arrogant. Democrats aren’t interested in what they don’t know, do not think there is anything they are not an expert on, and aren’t interested in being educated on what they don’t understand because they refuse to accept the concept that there could be anything they do not. It leads to a group of people who are dangerously broken and hell-bent on inflicting damage on Americans who will not obey them and the country we love.

Ro Khanna, the anti-American “progressive” leftist Congressman from California, is a prime example of the ignorance side of the ledger. While seeming like a perfectly nice guy personally, it is important to remember that totalitarianism always comes with a smile. Seriously, search whatever monster comes to mind – Mao, Stalin, Kim – and you will find plenty of pictures of them grinning from ear to ear. It’s not by accident, the image overrides the awful.

Khanna, more of an affable goof, tweeted out recently, “Trump's threat to ban migration from ‘third world countries,’ an outdated term, is returning to a pre-1965 America where immigration from nations like India was several restricted. My parents would not have been welcome.  His threat to revoke citizenship to those he views a ‘non-compatible’ after how hard immigrants from places like Mexico, El Salvador, & Guatemala have worked to earn citizenship is callous & frightening.  What may be a casual rant on social media by the President is devastating to millions of hard-working, law-abiding immigrant families. They are reaching out scared. This is not the time for politicians to cave. I am sick of politicians demonizing immigrants and voting for things like the Laken Reilly Act that deprive immigrants of basic rights. We must stand up for the contributions immigrants make to America.”

Sorry for your loss, Ro, but if you really want to be outraged, wait till you hear what Laken Reilly was deprived of by an illegal alien…

First off, it’s “an outdated term” to say third world? There’s another word that starts with “r” that is even more “outdated” that absolutely applies to people like Ro. 

It is impossible for illegal aliens to be “law-abiding,” as their existence in this country is law-breaking. But this is the idiocy we’re dealing with and the dishonesty of Democrats. They choose the terms and the meaning of those terms to benefit themselves exclusively. 

This is how Democrats operate. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, a politician whose resting face gives the impression that her inner monologue is “duh,” recently celebrated the “first house rebuilt” in the Palisades after last January’s wild fires. Forget the fact that those fires were set by a leftist lunatic and exacerbated by the incompetence of local Democrats who allowed water reserves and fire hydrants to dry out, and think about the fact that it is almost a whole year later and only one “house” has been rebuilt. 

How is that even possible? 

The answer is simple: Democrats.

But the question is even more hilarious, once you get past the headline and realize the “house” is a construction company’s model home and no one is going to live in it. It’s a possible design for others, should they manage to navigate the mess that is LA and California’s permitting process. It’s like cooking a steak in front of a starving family, then throwing it away.

Mayor Bass, who originally touted the completion of the model home on social media as if it were an accomplishment, deleted the post after real victims of the fire complained, and it was learned the construction company had been in the process of building the home before the fires. Politico reported, “A homebuilding company, Thomas James Homes, owns the parcel. Before the fire, it sought permits to bulldoze the vacant home on the site and build a new one. The fire took care of the demolition. The new house isn’t planned as a place to live, but rather will serve as a model property for what the company could build for Palisades residents who’d lost their homes.”

The Mayor heighted the one construction project in the city that actually benefited from the fires. You can’t make this stuff up.

What the hell is wrong with these people? By that, I don’t just mean the politicians; I mean the people who vote for them. How did such a large concentration of human beings become so collectively ignorant and arrogant? I don’t care if they inflict their idiocy on themselves – I’d pull out a bag of popcorn and enjoy the show, if that were the case – it’s that they want to use the power of government to make sure everyone else suffers along with them. 

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 

New Docs Reveal Jack Smith Intentionally Violated Congressional Republicans’ Constitutional Rights

Smith never should have approved the subpoenas since they violated the congressional Republicans’ clearly established rights.

The Federalist

The Biden Administration okayed Special Counsel Jack Smith’s subpoenaing congressional phone records knowing the subpoenas were unconstitutional, emails released last week revealed. That same trove of documents also established the illegality of the nondisclosure orders issued by the courts to prevent the telecommunication providers from alerted the members of Congress of the unconstitutional seizure of their toll records.

Last week, as the nation turned its attention ahead to travel and turkey, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, released another two dozen documents related to the Arctic Frost investigation into President Donald Trump and Special Counsel Jack Smith’s subpoenaing of congressional phone records. A May 17, 2023 email from the Biden Administration’s Department of Justice to Smith’s team proves explosive, with the Public Integrity Section “concur[ring] in the subpoenas for toll records for the identified Members of Congress.”

This email may represent the first public evidence that the Biden Administration’s DOJ knew the special counsel’s office planned to subpoena congressional Republicans. But the scandal is even greater because in “concurring” in Smith’s use of subpoenas to target communications of members of Congress, the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section expressly acknowledged the unconstitutionality of the proposed course of action.

“As you are aware, there is some litigation risk regarding whether compelled disclosure of toll records of a Member’s legislative calls violates the Speech or Debate Clause in the D.C. Circuit,” Principal Deputy Chief of the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section John Keller wrote in a May 17, 2023 email to two top members of the special counsel’s team. Significantly, that email then cited the controlling precedent of United States v. Rayburn House Office Building, 497 F.3d 654, 662 (D.C. Cir. 2007), citing that appellate court decision’s holding that under the Speech or Debate Clause, “[t]he bar on compelled disclosure is absolute.” That email also cited In re Grand Jury Investigation, 587 F.2d 589, 594 (3d Cir. 1978) as establishing “[t]he caselaw is clear that a legislator asserting the invasion of the Speech or Debate Clause privilege by use of a grand jury subpoena to a third party may intervene and oppose such use.”

Notwithstanding the clarity of the D.C. Circuit’s holding in Rayburn House Office Building, “that a search that allows agents of the Executive to review privileged materials without the Member’s consent violates the [Speech or Debate] Clause,” the Biden Administration agreed with Special Counsel Smith’s decision to subpoena the congressional Republicans’ telephone records. The oxymoronically named Public Integrity Section justified its concurrence based on its “understanding of the low likelihood that any of the Members listed below would be charged,” and therefore “the litigation risk should be minimal here.”

In other words, the Biden Administration ignored Smith’s blatant violation of congressional Republicans’ constitutional rights under the Speech or Debate Clause because the special counsel’s office was unlikely to criminally charge any of the congressional Republicans — and therefore, there was little “litigation risk” that a court would exclude the unconstitutionally seized evidence.

That the Biden Administration’s DOJ and the special counsel’s office viewed the subpoenaed congressional Republicans as uninvolved in any of the supposed criminal activity under investigation related to the 2020 election proves significant for a second reason: Several federal judges or magistrates entered nondisclosure orders under the Stored Communications Act, meaning the telecommunication providers were directed not to “disclose the existence of the Subpoena to any other person (except attorneys for PROVIDER for the purpose of receiving legal advice).”

But the Stored Communications Act authorizes a nondisclosure order only if a judge finds there is “reason to believe” that notifying an individual of the subpoena would result in “(1) endangering the life or physical safety of an individual; (2) flight from prosecution; (3) destruction of or tampering with evidence; (4) intimidation of potential witnesses; or (5) otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or unduly delaying a trial.” 

Yet in subpoenas sent to Verizon for the records of Senators Lindsey Graham (South Carolina), Bill Hagerty (Tennessee), Josh Hawley (Missouri), Dan Sullivan (Alaska), Tommy Tuberville (Alabama), Ron Johnson (Wisconsin), Cynthia Lummis (Wyoming), and Marsha Blackburn (Tennessee) and Representative Mike Kelly (Pennsylvania), Special Counsel Smith sought a nondisclosure order. Smith likewise sought a nondisclosure order when he subpoenaed AT&T for Sen. Ted Cruz and the records for another still-unknown member of Congress. And in both cases, Judge James Boasberg found “reasonable grounds to believe that such disclosure will result in destruction of or tampering with evidence, intimidation of potential witnesses, and serious jeopardy to the investigation.”

Given that the special counsel’s team — with the concurrence of the DOJ — believed it unlikely that any of the congressional Republicans would face criminal charges, it is inconceivable that the special counsel’s office would nonetheless represent to a court that there were “reasonable grounds” to believe disclosing the subpoena to the members of Congress would result in the destruction or tampering of evidence, intimidation of witnesses, or otherwise jeopardized the investigation.

In fact, the cache of documents Sen. Grassley released on Tuesday included a memorandum the special counsel’s “Election Investigation Team” drafted to justify subpoenaing the records, and that document provided not even a hint of concern over whether congressional Republicans might obstruct the investigation. Instead, the memorandum suggested the subpoenas would seek corroborating evidence concerning calls Rudy Giuliani made to members of Congress, as well as fill gaps in various toll records the special counsel had already obtained. Smith’s team also wanted to “understand who else may have called these Members, as well as who the Members called at around the same time as they were contacted by Giuliani.” That latter rationale, though, runs headlong into the Speech or Debate Clause — which seems the more likely reason the special counsel’s office sought the nondisclosure orders.

On this point, Sen. Grassley’s release last week reveals another significant fact, namely that Special Counsel Smith was fully aware of his team’s plans to subpoena congressional Republicans. Specifically, Smith’s lead prosecutors emailed the special counsel on May 17, 2023, attaching a copy of their memo stating they “intend to subpoena toll records for January 4, 2021, to January 7, 2021, for Senators Marsha Blackburn, Lindsey Graham, Bill Hagerty, Josh Hawley, Cynthia Lummis, Ron Johnson, John Kennedy, Tim Scott, Dan Sullivan, and Tommy Tuberville, and Representative Mike Kelly.” The special counsel replied to that email by requesting Raymond Hulser, who had authored the memorandum along with J.P. Cooney, to “stop by.” Then, after Husler added two citations to the memorandum following their meeting, Smith “approved” the subpoenaing of the congressional Republicans.

Whether Smith also approved the seeking of a nondisclosure order remains to be seen, as does what specifically the special counsel’s office stated in its application for the nondisclosure order to Judge Boasberg — an order that never should have been issued.

But then again, Special Counsel Smith never should have approved the subpoenas since they violated the congressional Republicans’ clearly established rights under the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution.

SCOTUS Signals Willingness To Side With Trump Admin In Asylum Cases Dispute

‘It seems to me a prototypical case for the [Board of Immigration Appeals],’ said Chief Justice Roberts.

The Federalist

The U.S. Supreme Court appeared favorable to the Trump administration’s position in a high-profile asylum-related case before the bench on Monday.

During the roughly hour-long hearing, the justices heard arguments in Urias-Orellana v. Bondi. The case centers around Salvadoran national Humberto Urias-Orellana, who fled his home country and illegally entered the United States with his family in 2021 after reportedly enduring targeted violence in El Salvador.

As summarized by Oyez, upon entering America, the illegal alien and his family were charged by the Department of Homeland Security “with removability for illegal entry,” which prompted them to apply for asylum “based on persecution of their family group.” Urias-Orellana also sought “protection” under the United Nations’ “Convention Against Torture” (CAT) doctrine.
His applications were rejected by an immigration judge, who concluded that his claims did not meet the standard of what constitutes as persecution, and his “CAT claim failed because he did not report his harassment to the police and did not demonstrate that doing so would be futile,” Justia summarized.

The ruling was later upheld by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which prompted plaintiffs to appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals for review.

The appellate court’s rejection of the petition led Urias-Orellana to appeal to SCOTUS, in which he asked the high court to address the question of “whether a federal court of appeals must defer to the BIA’s judgment that a given set of undisputed facts does not demonstrate mistreatment severe enough to constitute ‘persecution'” under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

In his opening remarks, plaintiffs’ attorney Nicholas Rosellini contended that “deciding whether undisputed facts qualify as persecution under the law involves legal interpretation, not fact finding,” — “Even the BIA agrees,” he added — and therefore, cases such as Urias-Orellana’s are eligible for review by federal appellate courts.

The BIA “treats the issue as a question of law subject to de novo review. That should not change when a case reaches federal court,” Rosellini said. “Under both the INA’s text and [existing precedent], courts should decide for themselves whether undisputed facts establish persecution under the law. [Federal law] explicitly provides for legal deference on closely related issues but not this one. And decades of experience confirms that courts perform crucial legal work in applying the INA’s persecution standard. Deference to the BIA is unwarranted.”

While discussing a past Supreme Court case (INS v. Elias-Zacarias) dealing with asylum and the standard of “persecution” with Rosellini, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that “the question is, did [Urias-Orellana] have a fear for his life?” She further asked how the Salvadoran national and his family’s circumstances are “any different from what happened in Elias-Zacarias,” in which the court held that a guerilla organization’s efforts to coerce an asylum seeker “into performing military service does not necessarily constitute ‘persecution on account of … political opinion’ under … the Immigration and Nationality Act.”

Rosellini argued that Sotomayor’s question is not what’s at issue in this matter and contended that “this is a past persecution case.”

“Under the INA, a noncitizen is presumptively eligible for asylum if they have suffered persecution in the past. It’s not this forward-looking inquiry about whether they have a well-founded fear of persecution going forward. That’s a different kind of inquiry … It involves the calculation of a future probability. And so, the case for substantial evidence review would be much stronger there,” Rosellini said. “But here … the facts of what happened to my client are undisputed. The immigration judge took his testimony as credible and true, and found that the death threats he experienced were indeed credible and menacing but nevertheless held that, under the law, they did not rise to the level of persecution.”

That response prompted pushback from Chief Justice John Roberts, who noted that, in his answer, Rosellini acknowledged that the case “involved credibility findings … the sort of findings that we typically leave to a district court or another fact finder involving credibility, weighing of facts, and all that sort of thing, to reach a particular determination.”

“It seems to me a prototypical case for the BIA,” Roberts added.

Associate Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan also appeared skeptical of Rosellini’s arguments.

In her line of questioning, Jackson probed Urias-Orellana’s attorney about “why the [INA] doesn’t prescribe the standard of review in this [particular] situation.” She further noted that, from her understanding, “the agency … determined that your client was not eligible for admission because he had not satisfied the requirements for asylum,” and that, the INA “tells us what the standard of review is supposed to be.”

Meanwhile, Kagan questioned Rosellini about why this should be considered a “primarily legal” matter for the federal appellate courts rather than a factual one reserved for immigration judges and the BIA. In discussing the standard of persecution, she noted how “what’s going to happen in this case is we’re going to have to look at all this evidence, all these facts, and decide whether these threats were indeed that level of menacing, and that sounds like really weighing evidence to me. That sounds really factual.”

Citing Kagan’s questioning, Associate Justice Samuel Alito similarly probed Rosellini about the factual v. legal argument. He specifically asked, “You may have a set of historical facts that are undisputed, but determining whether they add up, whether the totality of those facts satisfies that standard sure looks to me like primarily a factual question. Why is it not?” 

“Because, when courts make that decision, they are building out a decision — a body of decisional law that guides future cases. If you look at the First Circuit’s decision in this case, the [immigration judge’s] decision in this case, they are analogizing to cases that came before,” Rosellini said.

“But that would be true in a vast majority of situations. Do you think the determination of whether — of negligence — is a legal standard?” Alito asked, to which Rosellini replied, “No, Your Honor. We would agree that negligence would be something that’s reviewed deferentially.”

Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh similarly appeared skeptical of Rosellini’s arguments. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas asked Rosellini one question about SCOTUS’ deferential handling of Elias-Zacarias and how Urias-Orellana’s persecution case differs from that.

Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not ask any questions of either party during the hearing.

Check Out the Insane Reason UK Police Arrested a British Man Who Visited the US

Townhall 

We all know the U.K. has some very insane laws concerning speech and self-defense. Back at the beginning of September, comedian and screenwriter Graham Linehan was arrested by five armed police officers at London's Heathrow Airport for social media posts he made while in the United States. Linehan lives in the U.S. and has a temporary visa he's hoping will turn into a permanent green card one day, in part because of the U.K.'s draconian speech codes.

Thankfully, Linehan's case was later thrown out, likely because of the online backlash and Linehan's refusal to back down. But it's not the only time the U.K. authorities have used British law to punish people for things that happened on American soil.

Another Brit went on a trip to Florida, where he went to a firing range. He posted a pic holding a shotgun and was arrested when he returned home.

Here's more (emphasis added):

A British IT consultant was arrested by West Yorkshire Police after posting pictures of himself posing with guns during an American holiday on LinkedIn.

Jon Richelieu-Booth, 50, shared the photograph taken at a Florida homestead on August 13.

The post sparked a 13-week ordeal, which began with a police warning at his residence.

Officers cautioned him about online content and its potential impact on others' feelings.

Despite Mr Richelieu-Booth’s offer to demonstrate the photograph's American origin, authorities chose to arrest him on August 24.

Despite all charges against him being withdrawn, police returned to his property after 10pm that evening and detained him.

Bail documentation revealed accusations of firearm possession intended to frighten and stalking charges concerning a property photograph on social media.

Following his initial release on bail until late October, police visited his home three additional times.

"I've been put through 13 weeks of hell," Richelieu-Booth said. "When did we go from a society where you can have a discussion with somebody and go, 'You know what? I don't like your opinion. I'm going to disagree with you, but I'm not going to tell you why, I'm going to call the police.'"

He also asked, "When did we get so thin-skinned as a society?"

Police seized his electronic devices, which prevented Richelieu-Booth from doing his IT consulting work. Now the man plans to file legal actions against the West Yorkshire Police.

"I will be seeking quite a lot of damages," he said.

Americans should thank their lucky stars that we have robust First and Second Amendment protections, something U.K. citizens like Richelieu-Booth do not enjoy. But that doesn't mean we're immune to such Orwellian laws. During protests in the U.K. last year, police warned they would work to extradite Americans for offensive social media posts, and the nation's Online Safety Bill (OSB) could pose threats to Americans' free speech online.

Trump Doubles Down on His Asylum Pause From Third World Countries

Townhall 

President Trump doubled down on pausing offers of asylum to people from the third world on Sunday aboard Air Force One, following the deadly terror attack last Wednesday that resulted in the death of one West Virginia National Guardsman and critically injuring another. The suspect, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, is a refugee from Afghanistan.

“We don’t want people. We have enough problems. We don’t want those people,” the president said. “You know why we don’t want them? Because many have been no good, and they shouldn’t be in our country.”

The 19 countries affected by the pause include Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela.

Those countries, Trump said, are countries that are “not friendly to us and countries that are out of control themselves–countries like Somalia that have virtually no government, no military, no police. All they do is go around killing each other, then they come into our country and tell us how to run our country."

The president then took a swipe at Democratic Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, who has been suspected of committing immigration fraud by marrying her brother. However, she has continually denied those claims. He repeated the allegation and argued that if it were true, Rep. Omar should be thrown “the hell out of our country.”

President Trump made his initial announcement in a series of posts to Truth Social on Thanksgiving:

I will permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries to allow the U.S. system to fully recover, terminate all of the millions of Biden illegal admissions, including those signed by Sleepy Joe Biden’s Autopen, and remove anyone who is not a net asset to the United States, or is incapable of loving our Country, end all Federal benefits and subsidies to noncitizens of our Country, denaturalize migrants who undermine domestic tranquility, and deport any Foreign National who is a public charge, security risk, or non-compatible with Western Civilization,

Claims Afghans Were ‘Vetted’ Contradict Federal Investigations And Common Sense

The process by which the Biden administration ushered Afghans into the United States barely resembles ‘vetting’ at all.

The Federalist

On Friday President Donald Trump announced his administration would pause asylum processes and stop issuing visas to Afghans in response to the shooting of two National Guardsmen, one of whom later died. It was an Afghan national, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, admitted into the United States through a Biden-era program, who allegedly shot and killed Specialist Sarah Beckstrom and critically injured Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe.

Of course, the propaganda press insisted this was an isolated tragedy and certainly not evidence of a failed system.

The New York Times’ Julian E. Barnes and Hamed Aleaziz wrote on Saturday that “Afghans Who Assisted U.S. During the War Underwent Rigorous Vetting.” ABC News’ Anna Flaherty called FBI Director Kash Patel’s recent comments that the Biden Administration did “absolutely zero vetting” of the refugees not “accurate.” It’s the same insistence CNN’s Tara Subramaniam and Holmes Lybrand made in a “fact-check” in 2021.

“Fact check: Afghans coming to US are not ‘unvetted refugees,’” the duo assured readers.

But federal investigations tell a very different story: The Biden administration did not conduct rigorous vetting, officials often lacked basic identification training, and the government was admitting persons who simply were not properly screened. Far from instilling confidence, these reports show the vetting process was so deeply flawed that it shouldn’t have even qualified as a process at all.

An October 2021 memorandum from the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) details that “vetting” process by summarizing “interviews conducted by HSGAC staffers with federal agency officials tasked with screening, vetting, or processing Afghan evacuees” at several locations.

“Based on staff interviews with federal officials, it appears the standard security screening and vetting process that the U.S. Government conducts for refugee or visa applicants, which includes validating identification documents and an in-person interview by a trained official, is not being followed for Afghan evacuees,” the memorandum states.

Notably, “most of the staff processing evacuees with identification were not trained to recognize fraudulent documentation from Afghanistan.”

According to the memo, Afghans who lacked any “identification or records” were still permitted to come to the United States so long as the government didn’t already have any fingerprints or other biometric data that would indicate the individual was a known “terrorist, terrorist affiliate, or criminal.”

For Afghans who did have some type of identification, “federal officials told Committee staff the screening process did not include the validation of identification documents beyond a visual inspection.”

Federal officials further told HSGAC that Afghans were entered “into U.S. tracking systems” based on the data included in the Afghan’s identification document or, if such documents were unavailable, merely whatever data the Afghan relayed.

“Federal officials relayed that few Afghans know their birthday, which has resulted in a number of evacuees’ date of birth logged as January 1,” the investigation revealed. The memo also noted significant miscommunication issues. In one case, a “federal official who worked at the Rota lily pad site” thought security vetting occurred when refugees entered the United States, while “a federal official at the Fort Lee evacuee housing site” said vetting occurred overseas.

Further, federal officials said they were processing regular Afghans who did not work for the U.S. the same way they were processing Afghans who claimed to have worked on behalf of the country.

All of this was part of President Joe Biden’s “Operation Allies Welcome.” After the deadly Afghanistan withdrawal, the Biden administration welcomed thousands of foreigners into the country. The Department of Homeland Security inspector general later released a report in 2022 finding the agency did not properly “screen, vet, and inspect all Afghan evacuees arriving as part of Operation Allies Refuge (OAR)/Operation Allies Welcome (OAW).”

The DHS inspector general report found that “U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) did not always have critical data to properly screen, vet, or inspect the evacuees.”

We determined some information used to vet evacuees through U.S. Government databases, such as name, date of birth, identification number, and travel document data, was inaccurate, incomplete, or missing. We also determined CBP admitted or paroled evacuees who were not fully vetted into the United States.

The report concedes the government may have “paroled individuals into the United States who pose a risk to national security and the safety of local communities.”

Taken together, none of this resembles “rigorous vetting.” In fact, it barely resembles “vetting” at all.